Sorry.... I know this isnt exactly heavy weight stuff

Bill Bennett(yeah the guy next to the black jack tables) lecture the recently deceased Gerald Ford about "decency"

Please help... I cant figure out whats funnier..... Bill Bennett lecture anyone about anything.... Bill Bennett suggesting that Bush and Cheney were inclined to engage in open and honest debate about the Iraq war in 2004, or Bill Bennett lecturing to a dead person.

Theocracy

First let me start off by saying Happy Holidays to everyone on here.... Which so far means Mitch, Bill and Larry.....

Last year, I received a Christmas card in the mail from an old college friend of mine. In it she gave the obligatory "This is what my husband and I have been doing for the last year, blah , blah" info. But of the most interest and annoyance for that matter, was that she closed her writing with (paraphrase)
'although society wants us to be politically correct and wish people "Happy Holidays", we hope that you wont be afraid to stand up and wish someone a "Merry Christmas"'

Now its probably my undeniable social liberalism that causes me to think of this card 12 months after the fact, but it ties in with something in the news that of late has decidedly pissed me off, the Virgil Goode letter.

Now dont get me wrong, I understand that letters like Goode's are sent all the time, attempts to point out various political bogeymen of the day.
But Goode's is in a class by itself.

Im really not sure where to start my criticism of the letter. There are so many angles from which to make an incision.

Theres the Constitutional angle: Article VI, Paragaph 3 of the U-S Constitution.

"...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualificatiion to any Office or public Trust under the United States"

Theres the factual angle: Goode writes:

".....if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran,"

Never mind that Ellison is a convert to Islam to was born and raised in Detroit.

There are the common sense angles:

Things like: why in the hell would we want to swear someone into office on a text on to which they dont assign any theological significance?

or

'Ours is a nation of laws'(Goode, Tancredo and the rest of the anti immigration crowd love to repeat that one at their convenience), not a nation of religious dogma.

But really the very worst of it is that Goode feeds the ignorant mindset that all Islam is anti thetical to being American. That our "American culture" is under seige from muslim immigrants, and in this case Muslims in general. And that religious freedom is somehow detrimental to freedom itself, and not an integral part thereof.

People like Goode sadly are lacking in many aspects of knowledge. Political savvy and pandering aside. Goode shows a poor fundamental understanding of American history, World history, US Constitutional Law, and the philosophical concepts of freedom and liberty.

Its the misunderstanding of history that leads Goode to offer the same criticism of a Muslim in Congress, that his Congressional ancestors offered of Catholics elected in the first half of the 20th century, and its his misunderstanding of our constitution that leads him to think that swearing in on a bible is some binding legal concept. and its his fundamental misunderstanding of concepts of liberty and freedom that lead him to lament the inevitable change in our society that new immigrants and increased religious diversity will bring.

Free societies change... because freedom itself is a catalyst for change, and the only way halt changes is to undermine freedom. Civil Libertarians need to ask ourselves if we really believe in freedom, and can we accept the social evolution that goes with it.

If not, we need to stop philosophizing about our "libertarianism" and our love of freedom.

SCTV - Mel Torme's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner

Tim Johnson-apologies to Monty Python

The Vice President enters the Senate cloakroom pushing a gurney.

Mr. Cheney: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The incoming majority leader does not respond.)
Mr. Cheney: 'Ello, Miss?
Mr. Reid: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Cheney: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Mr. Reid: We're closin' for holiday.
Mr. Cheney: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this senator what was elected not six weeks ago to this very assembly.
Mr. Reid: Oh yes, the, uh, the South Dakotan...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Cheney: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Mr. Reid: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Cheney: Look, matey, I know a dead senator when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Mr. Reid: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable senator, the South Dakotan, idn'it, ay? Beautiful parka!
Mr. Cheney: The parka don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Mr. Reid: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Cheney: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the gurney) 'Ello, Mister Tim Johnson! I've got a lovely fresh campaign contribution for you if you show...
(Reid hits the gurney)
Mr. Reid: There, he moved!
Mr. Cheney: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the gurney!
Mr. Reid: I never!!
Mr. Cheney: Yes, you did!
Mr. Reid: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Cheney: (yelling and hitting the gurney repeatedly) 'ELLO TIMMY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Takes senator off of the gurney and thumps its head on a desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Mr. Cheney: Now that's what I call a dead senator.
Mr. Reid: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Cheney: STUNNED?!?
Mr. Reid: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! South Dakotans stun easily, major.
Mr. Cheney: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That senator is definitely deceased, and when you elected it not six weeks ago, you assured us that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged campaign.
Mr. Reid: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords of South Dakota.
Mr. Cheney: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment ’e got here?
Mr. Reid: The South Dakotan prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable senator, id'nit, squire? Lovely parka!
Mr. Cheney: Look, I took the liberty of examining that senator when I entered the Senate chamber, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its chair in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.
(pause)
Mr. Reid: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that senator down, it would have nuzzled up to those lobbyists, taken their bribes with its teeth, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
Mr. Cheney: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this senator wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Mr. Reid: No no! 'E's pining!
Mr. Cheney: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This senator is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the chair 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the bench! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SENATOR-ELECT!!
(pause)
Mr. Reid: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the desk) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the chamber, and uh, we're right out of senators.
Mr. Cheney: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Mr. Reid: I got a slug.
(pause)
Mr. Cheney: Pray, does it talk?
Mr. Reid: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Mr. Reid: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Cheney: Well.
(pause)
Mr. Reid: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Cheney: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

The democratic tax bill I'd love to see

This one is for you Bill, but I would love to see the Democrats ideal tax bills.

My principles of a Democratic tax bill is on three pillars:

1. The tax must be progressive whereby top earners pay their "fair share".
2. The tax must be simple.
3. The tax must maximize tax relief for "working families".

Here's my stab at it. I'm only going to focus on individual taxes. So let's see:

1. Two tax brackets: 20 & 40%. 20% up to 80,000/160,000 for single/married filing joint. 40% above.
2. Income is income, regardless of the nature - interest, dividends, capital gains, benefits paid by employer, including social security.
   
3. All itemized deductions are removed save charitable contributions, with the 30/50% AGI rule shelved. The other deductions allowed are IRA/Pension plan contributions.
   
4. Bigger standard deduction and exemptions. Exemptions up to $5,000/head, indexed to inflation with no phase out. New standard deduction of $15,000/$30,000 for single married filing joint.
5. No more AMT.

Here's the positives of this:

1. Eliminate the different tax treatments of different types of income. A person with $100,000 of wages pays the same as one with $100,000 of dividends.
2. Standard deduction for everyone ensures that people with different spending habits don't have different tax results. A renter is on the same level as a homeowner with a mortgage. A person in a low tax state is on the level with one in a high tax state.
3. Helps "working families". My system means a family of four making $50,000 pays no Federal Income Tax. A single person making $20,000 pays no tax.
4. Simple - 90% of the people can do their own taxes based on this simple formula.

Is it "revenue neutral" I don't know, but it certainly fairer than what we have right now.

Election Post Mortem: Democrats

Now the Democrats have siezed control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years, and outright control of the Senate to boot. They were more so beneficiaries of a tired and corpulent Republican majority, as well as fatigue with the perceived lack of progress in Iraq. The Democrats were able to win majorities by not offering any real alternatives, but by aggressively putting out the message that Republicans were wasteful, corrupt, and inept.

Credit needs to be given to Rahm Emanuel, who is largely responsible for the Democratic resurgence. Emanuel recruited candidates that would appeal to red-state voters: pro-gun, nominally pro-life, and adverse to tax and spend politics.

This victory is a great opportunity for the Democrats to become the pro-growth, hawkish party they once were. This election can be seen as repudiation of the Kossites, as their messiah, Ned Lamont was thoroughly thrashed by Joe Lieberman. A democratic majority that would run on a pro-growth, economically populist, and militarily robust party could garner a natural constituency. That, coupled with gubernatorial wins in several states which would provide the opportunity to re-draw more Democratically favorable congressional districts after the 2010 census, could start the beginning of the ascendancy of the party for a long time.

However, should the Democrats not heed the lessons of the Republican defeat and their own defeat of just twelve years ago, they can very well be doomed to repeat it. Art Laffer, the famed economist, said at a lecture I attended that the electorate hasn't really changed over the years, but the political parties have. He said there is a natural majority of the electorate that is pro-growth with a strong foreign policy. From the 30s through the 60's, it was the Democrats that embodied this, while the Republicans were isolationists and anti-growth. Roles reversed in the 70s and 80s. The Clintons managed to co-opt a lot of this during the 90s, but lost it when Clinton left office when the Democrats became infused with Bush Derangement Syndrome. They were rebuffed in 2002 and 2004 because they were seen as anti-growth and weak on national defense.

Thus lies the problem, they must eschew their baser tendencies to tax, spend, and incite more partisan rancor with unnecessary investigations and gridlock. So that means that they will end up infuriating the leftists on their base. But if they're willing to buck them (and they have proven that they have not delivered a single winner yet for the party) and grasp building a greater and lasting majority, the opportunity is there.

My take on it is that the opportunity is there, but it will be squandered. The problem is that the Pelosis, the Conyers, the Rangels, the Waxmans, the Waters of the party are socialists and their baser tendencies will override the bigger picture. I don't think that they can necessarily do what it takes to build that majority, but I can see the Republicans blowing it too.

I guess we'll be able to tell by what they do over the next few months. Stuff like John Bolton comes to mind. If they let him come to a vote, they're looking big picture. If they stuff him in committee and use him for partisan grudge settling, then they're not ready for prime time.

Election Post Mortem: Republicans

On a macro perspective, it seems that there are variety of reasons the Republicans "lost" the election. I saw they lost the election on a macro perspective rather than the Democrats "winning" on the basis that the Democrats had no platform of substance outside of not being Republicans. in no particular order, here are some key items (and these primarily apply to the house Republicans):

1. The Republicans became the party of government. Many exit polls were showing that 11% more voters identified the Republicans as the "party of big government" than the Democrats. There is much validity that the house Republicans became a rubber stamp of the President's "conservative welfare state": No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drug benefit are the most obvious. This is indicative of the house leadership, particularly Tom DeLay. Tom DeLay is no conservative, and ran his position as house leader in such a manner that would make Tip O'Neil proud - using earmarks and other pork to get legislation passed. From 1998-2006, outside of taxes and welfare reform, it becomes difficult to think of any substantially conservative (in terms of limited government) initiative passed by the House. They were more content to featherbed, bribe constituents with entitlements, rather than reduce the scope of government. This covers one of my basic tenants of nominally conservative parties, they lose their raison d'etre when they stop being conservative. Or to use another analogy, if I want a big government party, I'll vote for the real thing in the Democrats.
2. Corruption. While in historic terms, the Republicans have not been as bad as some other congresses, the fact that they have an "R" after their name means they are held to a different standard than Democrats. Just look at the difference in the coverage of Foley, DeLay, Ney, etc versus the equally bad acts of Jefferson, Reid, etc. and how the press gave the Dems a pass on their "culture of corruption" accusations. Republicans need to be extra vigilant on these matters, and immediately remove potential problems long before primary/election season. Becoming more proactive on the ethics front would have inoculated them on many of these charges.
3. Iraq. It was an issue, but not necessarily for the reasons everybody thinks. To some degree, this election reflected the mood on the events in Iraq, but it was not an anti-war vote as many on the left would think. If you look at the breakdown of people of don't think that things are not going well in Iraq, I would wager that 1 in 3 are just plain "anti-war" and the other 2/3rds want a more aggressive resolution to the problem. I think that on a big picture, there needs to be an effort to show a lot of the good things that are happening outside of Baghdad: the reconstruction efforts, the functioning local governments and growing businesses, etc to offset the media's obsession with the carnage in a localized area. The press has been negligent in its lack of balance on this coverage. Republicans should have spent a lot more time constantly educating the public on everything that was going on in Iraq the past 3 years to counteract the Dems/MSM.
4. A do-nothing congress. This congress would talk a lot about taking on big issues like immigration and entitlement reform and would do nothing. While on many fronts, doing nothing is better than doing something, the perspective of inaction without explanation infuriates many voters and increases the anti-incumbent sentiment.

So, what to do about it? What is obvious is probably what they won't do. Remember that they are the party of limited government and govern on that principle. Elect leaders who believe in limited government who can effectively communicate the need for limited government to the electorate constantly.

Predictions

Predictions

With a month to go, I thought I'd make some picks and see where everybody stands on these:

PA: Santorum v. Casey. Despite the double digit leads in the polls, Bob Casey Jr. hasn't broken that key 50% threshold. That would suggest that there are a lot of undecided voters out there that haven't broken yet. I think I lot of them will swing to Santorum, but it won't be enough. Democratic pickup.
RI: Whitehorse v. Chaffee. A RINO versus a Democrat. If I'm a voter, I want the real thing. Whitehorse picks it up. Democratic Pickup
MI: Stabenow v. Bouchard. A pathetic incumbent in a state that has a strong anti-incumbency streak with a governor fighting for her life and the best you can do for a candidate is Mike Bouchard. Libby Dole is an awful Senate Campaign Chair just for the fact that with such favorable conditions for the GOP, they couldn't get a candidate that could win. It's a shame, because any decent GOP candidate would have knocked her out. The gap will narrow, but it will be a wider margin of victory than the governor will have. Democratic Retention.
MT: Burns v. Tester. I don't think Tester will pull it off. Though Burns is a buffoon who should have retired years ago (I can think of about 35 Senators I can make that statement about as well), Tester is a poor match for the electorate there and hasn't broken 50%. This race will tighten up, and tie goes to the GOP turnout machine. Republican Retention.
NJ: Menendez v. Kean. Despite the polls, the scandals plaguing the Dems in NJ, Kean isn't going to pull it off. Too many Dems, an passive acceptance of corruption means Menendez squeaks by. Democratic Retention.
MD: Steele V. Cardin. Cardin is having trouble breaking 50% consistently in the polls, which means a lot more money will need to be sunk into keeping this seat. This is a Democratic state, and Steele will keep it somewhat close, and that's all. Democratic Retention.
MN: Kennedy v. Klouchbar. Klobuchar has solid double digit poll leads, and is consistently over 50% in the polls. Should cruise to retain Dayton's seat for the Dems. Democratic Retention.
WA: McGavick v. Cantwell. Same story as Minnesota. Democratic Retention.
MO: Talent v. McCaskill. Although tied, I think Talent will pull it out. Better have the lawyers ready for "irregularities" in St. Louis though, it will be a long night there. Republican Retention.
OH: Dewine v. Brown. Similarities between Michigan and Ohio abound, but this time everybody in Ohio is ticked with Republicans, and rightfully so (Mr. tax and spend Bob Taft, thank you!). This has been a tossup so far, but I think turnout decides this, and I say DeWine in a squeaker. Republican Retention.
TN: Corker v. Ford. Though a tossup right now, Ford has trouble breaking 50%, not good. GOP turnout saves Frist's former seat for Corker, though much closer than originally expected months ago. Republican Retention.
Predictions

With a month to go, I thought I'd make some picks and see where everybody stands on these:

PA: Santorum v. Casey. Despite the double digit leads in the polls, Bob Casey Jr. hasn't broken that key 50% threshold. That would suggest that there are a lot of undecided voters out there that haven't broken yet. I think I lot of them will swing to Santorum, but it won't be enough. Democratic pickup.
RI: Whitehorse v. Chaffee. A RINO versus a Democrat. If I'm a voter, I want the real thing. Whitehorse picks it up. Democratic Pickup
MI: Stabenow v. Bouchard. A pathetic incumbent in a state that has a strong anti-incumbancy streak with a governor fighting for her life and the best you can do for a candidate is Mike Bouchard. Libby Dole is an awful Senate Campaign Chair just for the fact that with such favourable conditions for the GOP, they couldn't get a candidate that could win. It's a shame, because any decent GOP candidate would have knocked her out. The gap will narrow, but it will be a wider margin of victory than the governor will have. Democratic Rentention.
MT: Burns v. Tester. I don't think Tester will pull it off. Though Burns is a buffoon who should have retired years ago (I can think of about 35 Senators I can make that statement about as well), Tester is a poor match for the electorate there and hasn't broken 50%. This race will tighten up, and tie goes to the GOP turnout machine. Republican Retention.
NJ: Menendez v. Kean. Despite the polls, the scandals plauging the Dems in NJ, Kean isn't going to pull it off. Too many Dems, an passive acceptence of corruption means Menendez squeaks by. Democratic Rentention.
MD: Steele V. Cardin. Cardin is having trouble breaking 50% consistently in the polls, which means a lot more money will need to be sunk into keeping this seat. This is a Democratic state, and Steele will keep it somewhat close, and that's all. Democratic Retention.
MN: Kennedy v. Klouchbar. Klobuchar has solid double digit poll leads, and is consistently over 50% in the polls. Should cruise to retain Dayton's seat for the Dems. Democratic Retention.
WA: McGavick v. Cantwell. Same story as Minnesota. Democratic Retention.
MO: Talent v. McCaskill. Although tied, I think Talent will pull it out. Better have the lawyers ready for "irregularities" in St. Louis though, it will be a long night there. Republican Retention.
OH: Dewine v. Brown. Similarities between Michigan and Ohio abound, but this time everybody in Ohio is ticked with Republicans, and rightfully so (Mr. tax and spend Bob Taft, thank you!). This has been a tossup so far, but I think turnout decides this, and I say DeWine in a squeaker. Republican Retention.
TN: Corker v. Ford. Though a tossup right now, Ford has trouble breaking 50%, not good. GOP turnout saves Frist's former seat for Corker, though much closer than originally expected months ago. Republican Retnention.
VA: Webb v. Allen. Allen has run a terrible campaign, but Webb has a run a worse one. Squandered opportunities and bad judgements have really hurt Jim Webb. Allen has a huge money advantage, and will have a comfortable victory in light of all the problems his campaign had. Republican Retention.

Looking at those races, I have two pickups for the Dems, and a possible third (pick one of MO

or OH). Figure loss of 9, 10 seats in the House. Despite the polls, it is really difficult to win in gerrymandered districts that are GOP friendly in most cases.